Laura Beers, a professor of history and expert on political betting at American University, told Newsweek there are numerous reasons an anonymous trader would be betting so much money on a Trump victory. For instance, there is historical precedent for using the idea of betting on politics "as a hedge."

"If Fredi9999 has business interests that stand to lose from a Trump victory, they could be betting on one to offset those potential future loses," she said. "There is evidence that British bettors used election markets this way in the early 20th century."

However, she noted that the trader "has been involved in significant in-and-out trading," suggesting "that they might be seeking to profit from market manipulation of their own devising, or just to profit from taking advantage of what they see as temporary shifts in the market."

The Commodities and Futures Trading Commission has previously warned about the potential for manipulation in betting markets, which were illegal in the U.S. until recently.

The trader could also be trying to influence the election by shifting the betting odds in Trump's favor, she said....

Whomever Fredi9999 is, the trader's bullishness extends beyond Trump to other GOP figures. They have also bought contracts in support of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, though both had ended their presidential campaigns by the time the profile was created.

What We Know About the Mystery Trader Betting Big on a Trump Win

A mysterious online trader is betting big on former President Donald Trump beating Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential race.

Trump and Harris are locked in a tight race with less than three weeks until Election Day. Polls show the two candidates separated by only tiny margins in battleground states. But online betting markets, where individuals are putting millions of real dollars on the results of the presidential race, have broken toward Trump in recent days.

Polymarket, one of the leading political betting markets that is based offshore and partially funded by Peter Thiel, gave Trump about a 60 percent chance off winning the election as of Wednesday, while Harris had a 40 percent chance of victory. Betting odds have fluctuated throughout the election and may change based on current events and polls that could affect the outcome of the race.

But one trader has appeared to be influencing the market by betting millions of dollars on a Trump victory.

As of late Tuesday, the trader, only known as Fredi9999, has purchased more than 15 million shares, valued at $8.7 million, betting that Trump would win the election.

They have also purchased more than 3 million shares betting that Trump would win the popular vote, and nearly 1.5 million shares that Trump would carry Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state that is viewed as the most likely tipping-point state this cycle. All told, Fredi9999's position is valued at more than $14 million on the platform.

"Reuters conducted interviews with a focus group of 10 undecided voters, six of whom said that they would support Trump following the debate."

versus:

"Six said afterward they would now either vote for Trump or were leaning toward backing him."

See the difference?

Women voting for Harris is identity politics, but men voting for Trump is not. Got it.

The idea that Trump won the debate is false:

10 undecided voters explain why they haven't picked a side in this election

First, the debate was important for Harris. Most who watched said she performed better than Trump. They were not all moved to vote for her as a result, but four who seemed to need a degree of reassurance about Harris are now voting for her or leaning Harris' direction after the debate.

And while undecided voters often have unique reasons for what influences their votes, there was a clear gender divide. All four who say they are now voting for or leaning toward Harris are women. That also reflects the wide gender gap seen in polls between the candidates.

The other six--one woman and five men--were a mix. Five said they likely won't be voting for Harris, most citing the economy or immigration as reasons. One other said he is still truly undecided, but said prices are a major concern. Two are leaning toward Trump; another said she aligns more with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; a self-described progressive said he doesn't like Harris' stance on the war in Gaza; and one other, a conservative, said he might not vote at all.

For the snap reaction to that, it is better to look at Polymarket where Trump is now up by 22.7% - a widening over about 4% from the pre-interview spreads. The market has spoken and she bombed.
#36 | Posted by deadman

Polymarket isn't exactly an unbiased source, is it?:

Polymarket is owned by Peter Thiel, the immigrant billionaire who has been JD Vance's sugardaddy for years and who is bankrolling MAGA and the Project 2025 machine. It's widely considered heavily biased and flawed to skew right. Complete --------.

Reuters conducted interviews with a focus group of 10 undecided voters, six of whom said that they would support Trump following the debate. Only three said they would back Harris, while a final voter was still undecided."

What the Reuters report actually said:

Sept 11 (Reuters) - Kamala Harris was widely seen as dominating Tuesday's presidential debate against Republican former president Donald Trump, but a group of undecided voters remained unconvinced that the Democratic vice president was the better candidate.

Reuters interviewed 10 people who were still unsure how they were going to vote in the Nov. 5 election before they watched the debate. Six said afterward they would now either vote for Trump or were leaning toward backing him. Three said they would now back Harris and one was still unsure how he would vote.

Peter Wehner
@Peter_Wehner

My take: Bret Baier has rarely looked as bad (or tendentious) as he did in his interview with Kamala Harris. On the flip side, this was one of her best interviews. She dominated Bret. All in all it was quite a bad day for MAGA world's most important media outlet.

Fox News political analyst Brit Hume on VP Harris:

"She was combative and energetic and certainly landed some blows on Donald Trump"

Trump told Fox & Friends that he would prefer Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters, or Laura Ingraham to moderate any future debate, saying that Watters "was fantastic last night, what he said." "Jesse really got it. Jesse said that Trump won that debate. We won that debate by a lot. No, I wouldn't want Martha involved. But I would take some others, yeah," Trump said, arguing that Bret Baier and Martha McCallum aren't qualified to moderate.
Yep.
#23 | Posted by REDIAL

The thing is if Trump did do an interview with Baier, Baier would never go after Trump the way he went after Harris, repeatedly interrupting her, etc. No one on Fox would. And if someone did dare to treat Trump like that, he wouldn't stand for it. He'd get up and walk out after the first five minutes.

I think it would be good if she proposed similiar plans for the working class in Appalachia, who are mostly white, for example, and not just for black entrepeneurs. Most of them would probably be too suspicious to take the money though, especially if the program it came from had Harris' name attached to it (think Obamacare vs the ACA or people in the mountains of WNC when it comes to accepting help from FEMA under Biden's presidency).

35
such a drama queen. I agree with all of that but you're being naive about how it works. Those issues are fine to hammer Trump with but why serve up this stupid issue to be hammered by the opposition?
in exchange for what? votes from a demographic you'll get 95% of that demographic?
dumb.
#36 | Posted by eberly

I assume she is offering up these proposals because they will help members in the black community, who might not otherwise be able to do so, start a small business and begin to establish intergenerational wealth in the process.

You are such a shill. You can't see a pile of dog ---- when it's put right under your nose.
What about hispanics, or gays, or gay hispanics or gay hispanic women or muslims, etc.??
Blacks?
This is so stupid. It is a slow pitch beach ball to be clobbered by the opposition.
#33 | Posted by eberly

Trump wants to cut taxes for billionaires again, ballooning the deficit yet again in the process, while also doubling down on tariffs, after having spent $28 billion of taxpayer money during his previous adminstration to compensate farmers hurt by his earlier tariffs, and you are bitching about 1 million $20,000 forgivable loans to help black entreperneurs? Got it.

-You are conflating the two different proposals.
You mean the voters are conflating the two different proposals.
Which is why this is so stupid.
Posted by eberly

Voters are conflating the two, or some of you are conflating the two? It looks like the latter to me.

Here is what the article says about the proposals:

The plan outlined Monday would provide 1 million fully forgivable loans of up to $20,000 to Black entrepreneurs and others to start a business. The loans would be financed through partnerships between "mission-driven lenders," community oriented banks and the Small Business Administration, the campaign said.

The agenda also includes training and mentorship programs to help Black men get jobs in high-demand industries, and greater investments in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to recruit and retain Black male teachers.

The PSLF program provides student loan forgiveness after 10 years to borrowers who work in certain nonprofit and government jobs. Black men make up less than 2% of public school teachers in the U.S., according to the findings of the National Teacher and Principal Survey for the 2020-21 school year.

Harris also promised she would support federal-level marijuana legalization, a major step beyond the Biden administration's current stance on cannabis, which includes pardoning people convicted of marijuana possession and exploring a potential reclassification of marijuana on the drug schedule.

Harris "will break down unjust legal barriers that hold Black men and other Americans back by legalizing marijuana nationally, working with Congress to ensure that the safe cultivation, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana is the law of the land," according to a Harris campaign statement.

"She will also fight to ensure that as the national cannabis industry takes shape, Black men " who have, for years, been over policed for marijuana use " are able to access wealth and jobs in this new market," the campaign said.

Harris' new plan also contains a few lines about digital assets, another area where she appears poised to break ranks with the Biden administration.

According to her campaign, Harris "knows that more than 20% of Black Americans own or have owned cryptocurrency assets, which is why her plans will make sure owners of and investors in digital assets benefit from a regulatory framework so that Black men and others who participate in this market are protected."

It was not clear Monday what that framework would look like, but a fierce battle over cryptocurrency regulation is well underway in Washington.

The plan includes a list of different proposals. One proposal is the 1 million forgivable loans to black entrepereneurs. Another proposal is to make sure black men get to participate in the canabis industry. You are conflating the two different proposals.

Read the article, Eberly. The 1 million forgivable loans are not for Black entrepreneurs to open pot shops.

"JFC, if you dumbfuqs think the optics of giving free money to people to open pot shops...then keep stumping for it. You're crazy."

Where does it say that is in thed plan?

Lefty starts a thread and he has posted 7 times, and BW has posted 5 times out of 15 posts. That's trolling.

In The Belly Of The Beast: Kamala Harris Fights To Get A Word In During Inimical Inaugural Fox News Interview

Jumping into the belly of the beast at the conservative cable newser for the first time in her long career, Harris found herself being pilloried by Baier, especially over illegal immigration and border security. At the same time, having been roasted online by the MAGA base in anticipation of softball questions, "real journalist" (as the VP called him at one point) Baier barely let the VP get a word in during the opening part of the sit-down.

It wasn't a good look for Fox, and a gift to Harris who got to play tough in Trump's media backyard and lean into her rival's mental decline. Raising her voice several times, the VP once again went hard on her default position that Trump is fundamentally "unstable" and dangerous to have back in the Oval Office.

Looking at Lefty & BW trolling away:

Bakari Sellers
@Bakari_Sellers
Y'all out here critiquing Kamala like your guy didn't just stand on stage and sway to elevator music for 30 mins.

I posted earlier on how Trump's tariffs in the past cost the US taxpayer $28 billion dollars so he could compensate farmers for the finanical damage his tariffs while presidient did to them. Well, now data is coming out on how his propsed tariffs will hurt farmers if he gets re-elected:

Pennsylvania farmers could lose $111 million in soy exports, $50 million in corn exports, $22 million in beef exports and $20 million in wheat exports, according to the analysis from the University of Illinois Department of Agriculture and Consumer Economics.

"These new studies literally show that Trump's tariffs will put Pennsylvania farmers out of business," Chris Gibbs, an Ohio corn and soybean farmer and president of Rural Voices USA, said in a statement Tuesday. "Exports are vital for Pennsylvania farmers and they cannot absorb the sharp fall in exports and prices these studies foreshadow."

Uh-oh, someone better contact the FCC:

"Fox News did not disclose that the female audience it selected for the event was packed with local Republican supporters"

From the above link:

Table 1: Taxpayer Cost of Trade-Related Aid to Farmers and Other Federal Programs

PROGRAM TAXPAYER COST

Trump Aid to Farmers $28 Billion
Department of State $26.3 Billion
Navy Ship Building (annual avg.) $22 Billion
Nuclear Forces $21.8 Billion
NASA $19.8 Billion
Children's Health Insurance $17.3 Billion
TANF $16.7 Billion
Department of Commerce $8.6 Billion
EPA $8.1 Billion
Judicial Branch $7.8 Billion
National Science Foundation $7.2 Billion
Legislative Branch $4.7 Billion
Food Safety and Inspection Service $1.3 Billion
Agricultural Research Service $1.1 Billion
Forest Service $0.4 Billion